On KeelyNet Bill Whamond says that Walter Baumgartner said that Bruce dePalma got his anomalous gravity g results because a spinning ball centrifuges aether. I agree that any spinning (or orbiting) mass centrifuges aether, but, Walter said that this will "increase the aether pressure impinging on the poles & decrease the ambient aether-pressure at the equator." I reckon the opposite, i reckon that apparent g is increased near the equator & is lessened near the poles. http://www.keelynet.com/energy/centrifuge.htm WB says……..

It is my suspicion and belief that dePalma is 'centrifuging aether'! If aether exists, then obviously rotation will centrifuge it, just as happens with any other fluid subjected to rotation. In 'classical' physics (as distinct from 'establishment' physics), aether has always been regarded as a fluid (along with water, oil, electricity and magnetism, etc.).The 'dePalma Effect' explains why 'gravity' is greater at the earth's poles and less at the earth's equator. It also explains why Earth is flattened at the poles and bulged at the equator. The 'establishment belief' that this is due to the difference in polar and equatorial radii is almost certainly wrong and is mistaking the effect (radii differences) for the real cause (aether pressure differential).If dePalma is 'centrifuging aether', this will increase the aether pressure impinging on the poles and decrease the ambient aether-pressure at the equator. This will also induce a partial aether vacuum above the poles and produce 'boundary layer reduction' of the aether enveloping the equator.

Aetherons (or aethons) form aether, the universal sub-quantum essence that creates all quantum things (ie every thing that we see or feel). A vibration or spin of the aether creates free photons, that travel at a speed of c (300,000 kmps). Free photons are the prime quantum particle or quasi-particle. A free photon has a helical (probably) main body & has a length (probably one wave length) – it can bite its own tail to form a loop, which makes it a confined photon (Williamson).

Aether is annihilated in a free photon & aether flows in to replace the lost aether. The acceleration of the inflow (ie the converging streamlines) give us what we call gravity & mass. A confined photon has much more mass than a free photon – annihilation is greater (explanation elsewhere). Various forms of confined photons give us elementary particles (ie electrons & quarks etc).

Aether flowing to Earth impacts Earth at Earth's escape velocity (11.2 kmps) -- the converging aetheric streamlines giving a 1/RR relationship. There is a cosmic background aether wind blowing south to north throo Earth at 500 kmps approx 20 deg off Earth's spin-axis, right ascension 4:30 hrs. Gravity is not affected by a uniform flow of aether, gravity is due to acceleration of the flow -- therefore the uniform background wind can be ignored here – the gravity field is an aetheric acceleration field.

If accelerating aether accelerates an object near Earth then conversely a mechanically accelerated object must accelerate aether. The ground near the Equator suffers a small outwards centrifugal force & hencely must give a small inwards acceleration of aether (ie in addition to any inwards gravitational acceleration of aether). If extra aether is pulled in by every atom of spinning Earth (pulled in towards Earth's spin-axis) then logically the extra aether must be spat out near Earth's two poles.

Entering centrifuged aether must add to Earth's g, the entering aether accelerating per 1/R, whilst the gravity acceleration is per 1/RR. The exiting centrifuged aether at the poles will not have much affect on g, because the exiting streamlines will tend to be parallel.

The centrifuged g is apparently much much weaker than the gravity g, which is a bit of a mystery. Centrifugal g at the Equator is -0.3348% of gravity g at the Equator. Lets assume that centrifuged g is +0.1348%. If gravity g is 100.0000 m/s/s, then the measured g will be 99.8000 m/s/s.

The above three kinds of g must also apply to Earth's orbital motion with respect to the Sun & Moon & Milky Way etc.Here above i have ignored that measured g is affected by ticking dilation, ie our clocks are affected by the the aether wind. The aether wind (V kmps) slows ticking in accordance with the Lorentz equation for gamma. The greater the wind then the slower the ticking & hencely the greater the apparent g (ie measured g). Here the ticking is not affected by the acceleration of aether, it is affected by the V of aether.

Anyhow Einsteinian teams measuring g at various places & times havent a clue why their results are so inconsistent. They don’t know about the aether wind & the centrifuged aether.

Even before the detection of gravitational waves by LIGO, it was observed that the Hulse-Taylor binary neutron star system experienced orbital decay at exactly the rate predicted by relativity if the system emitted energy in the form of gravitational waves: http://aspbooks.org/publications/328/025.pdf

Take a look at the fourth page of the document to see just how closely the data matches the predictions. An awfully convenient coincidence if gravitational waves do not exist. If gravitational waves don't exist, then what was carrying the energy of the system away to allow for such orbital decay and why did it exactly match gravitational wave predictions?

Yes good points. Firstly i think that the close matching to the theoretical GR GW losses is overstated - what with inexact numbers for distance masses etc etc. I think that there are other reasons for the energy losses. (1) Tidal forces. (2) Photonic radiation. (3) Charge-electro-magnetic radiation. But not GW radiation. Some of (1)(2)(3) losses might not be associated with loss of orbital momentum & loss of orbital speed -- but much will. I havnt given this stuff much thort. Still thinking.

Centrifuging of aether (my pet subject) is i reckon a big cause of energy loss. (4) Aether is sucked in near the equator of a spinning star & consequently aether is pushed out near the two poles (however this spinning wouldnt much affect binary orbit). (5) But, a similar sucking & pushing must happen due to orbital rotation. In this case aether is sucked in from the outside of a star to the inside (outside being the half of the outer surface with respect to the other star)(inside being the inner half of the surface, ie the half closest to the other star). And aether is consequently pushed out in two directions along the common orbit axis. Centrifuging of aether is completely unknown by the science community, including aetherists (except of course that i know)(& praps one other guy).Yes, i think that the orbital centrifuging of aether (5) is the missing ingredient re energy loss -- & (4) centrifuging due to spin might contribute indirectly. But Einsteinian GWs do not exist, & hencely cant have any effect on a binary or on anything else.

There's been talk about the electric field around a rotating magnet and what causes the force on charged particles around rotating stars due to the magnetic field. Here's my takehttp://www.newenglandphysics.org/physics_world/em/rotating_magnet.htmPlease take a look. All comments welcome. What do you think? Note: I first started thinking about this when I heard talk of something called an N-machine. Some nut job named Bruce DePalma claimed he could create free energy with such a device. Nonsense. But I ordered his papers to see if I could see through his smoke as an exercise in open mindedness. It was well worth the effort because I learned of a very little known effect.

[DEPALMA STUFF COPIED FROM ANOTHER THREAD]https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75151.msg558196#msg558196Antigravity > Other antigravity machines and devicesBruce DePalma - Inertial Field Experiment Pages: (1/1)andros:Stefan (et al), You may recall me from the days I served as Bruce DePalma's personal secretary from 1988-1997. Many years have passed since his untimely death, and I continue to be possessed by a sense of loyalty to his work and memory. In short, I strongly encourage anyone in the field of science & technology to pursue the replication of this pioneering experiment conducted originally by DePalma:

Appendix 1 - 18 June 1975 Simple Experimental Test for the Inertial Field of a Rotating Real Mechanical Object(from: http://depalma.pair.com/Absurdity/Absurdity09/NatureOfElectricalInduction.html)Introduction: For the last five years, this investigator and others1, have studied the mechanical properties of rotating objects for the purpose of application of certain heretofore undiscovered properties of rotation to new forms of propulsion machinery and machines with anti-gravitational effect. The course of this investigator has not been to try to perfect new propulsion machinery, per se, but however to thoroughly investigate the phenomena of rotation.

The result of a great deal of experimentation (see appendix), has resulted in a picture which relates the performance of certain non-conventional machinery: Dean, Laithwaite, Wolfe, DePalma, to a variable inertia property which can be engendered through motion of a rotating object.

In terms of the acceptance of a new body of information relating to the properties of rotating objects and variable inertia, a simple experiment has to be devised which clearly demonstrates the new phenomena. In the performance of experiments with large rotating flywheels, there are great experimental difficulties which result from experimenting on the large rotating flywheels themselves. Through a series of corroborating experiments it has been established the anisotropic inertial properties of a rotating object are conferred on the space around the object. That is to say the space around a rotating object will have conferred upon it an inertial anisotropy. Let us ascribe this to the setting up of an od (odd) field through rotation of a real physical object. The purpose of the experiment to be described is the determination of one of the properties of an od field. The anisotropic inertia property.

The Experiment: A good way to detect a field whose effect is a spatial inertial anisotropy is to use a time measurement based on an inertial property of space and compare it to a remote reference. With reference to figure ( 1 ) we have a situation where the timekeeping rate of an Accutron tuning fork regulated wrist watch is compared to that of an ordinary electric clock with a synchronous sweep second hand.

The Accutron timepiece is specified to be accurate to one minute a month. Examination of the relative time drift of the Accutron - electric clock combination shows a cumulative drift of .25 second Accutron ahead for 4 hours of steady state operation. This is within the specification of the watch.Figure 1 -- (see hyperlink below) http://depalma.pair.com/Absurdity/Absurdity09/nature5.jpgWith the flywheel spinning at 7600 r.p.m. and run steadily for 1000 seconds (17 minutes), the Accutron loses .9 second relative to the electric clock.

Much experimentation has shown that the effect is greatest with the position of the tuning fork as shown. Magnetic effects from leakage fields from the gyro drive motors are almost entirely absent; any remaining leakage is removed by co-netic magnetic shielding. The Accutron is also in a "non-magnetic" envelope.

The purpose of the experiment is a simple demonstration of one of the effects of the od field of a rotating object. The demonstration may easily be repeated using any one of a variety of rotating objects, motor flywheels, old gyrocompasses, etc. The rotating mass of the flywheels used in these experiments is 29 1/2 pounds. The rotational speed of 7600 r.p.m. is easily accessible. The effect is roughly proportional to the radius and mass of the rotating object and to the square of the rotational speed.

Finer measurements can be made using an external electrically powered tuning fork oscillator and an electronic frequency counter. In this case the inertial anisotropy of the od field of a rotating object can be much more quickly and precisely measured. Field strength lines can be plotted along contours of constant frequency shift for the two orientation conditions of fork vibration direction parallel to, and perpendicular to, the axis of rotation of the test object.

Conclusions and Observations: The proper conclusions and evaluations of the above experiment will affect present conceptions of Cosmology. Before this can happen, simple tests must be performed to show the existence of a new phenomenon. It is hoped the apparatus for the performance of these tests is widely enough available to lead to quick verification. Bruce DePalma

I know that some people who post here don't like to consider that our current understanding of the laws of physics might be incomplete or even wrong. To me the idea of being wrong is wonderful. Its only then do we learn something truly extraordinary and exciting.

In 1990 I heard some nutcase named "Dr. Bruce DePalma" on the radio claiming to have built a free-energy device based on the homopolar generator. People were calling in claiming to have built them and they also claimed that they worked. There was a pamphlet you could get for $10 which they asserted explained the operation of it. I studied the philosophy of physics in college and one of the most important things that I took away from that course was to keep an open mind because sometimes there was something interesting in what was otherwise nonsense. And this turned out to be one of those times. While the pamphlet was rubbished base on a very poor understanding of electrodynamics I did learn that the relativistic electrodynamics of a rotating magnet was not widely talked about in the physics literature. And in some places where it was the author got it quite wrong. A good example is how an astronomy text I have explained the force on charged particles by a rotating neutron star. The explanation was entirely wrong. Since then I learned the correct physics and am better for off it.

I think it's nonsense. I'm reminded of Bruce DePalma's N-machine that was being discussed on talk radio in the early 1990's. It was supposed be a perpetual motion machine. It was a simple rotating magnetic with a copper plate attached to one end. It's also known as a homopolar generator and can be found in certain electrodynamics textbooks. Supposedly one needs to understand relativity to understand its operation. A favorite quote of mine is from a philosophy of science class I took as an undergrad which said that nonsense can have some surprising twists to it sometimes and can be entertaining in a certain sense. So with that in mind I came I looked into it. And sure enough I was entertained by it. I learned that on does indeed need a good grasp on relativistic electrodynamics to understand it. I created a web page to describe the physics of the device athttp://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/em/rotating_magnet.htmBut the claim that it was a perpetual motion machine was garbage. The author was a fraud and the people who have web pages about it seem too afraid to respond to comments on them. But a lot of people called the radio station claiming that they worked and that implied that they were getting out more energy that was being put in. This is like your current subject. It too is crap.

In #4 of https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75151.0Re: Have gravity modification experiments been conducted (by mad aetherist)(split off from main board),......... alancalverd makes a comment that to me is the most memorable of all the postings that i have seen in New Theories, alluding to a possible effect of the centrifuging of aether. This effect is that aether is sucked in at the equator of a spinning body, & spat out axially near the two poles, the velocity of the aether inflow & outflow adding or subtracting from the background aetherwind, & hencely affecting the ticking of clocks near the axis of the spinning body, the V kmps of the aetherwind being what needs to be inserted in the equation for the Lorentz gamma, to calculate ticking dilation.

#4 might be the most important posting in all physics forums in 2018 worldwide.It starts the way that most good new theories start, with a puzzle. I dont see how Einsteinians could offer any sort of GR explanation. And i doubt that anyone could offer a good electromagnetic explanation. Centrifuging of aether explains it very well. Anyhow, it looks like clocks should be well clear of gyros. alancalverd says...........

The rate of a clock will be altered by the proximity of any mass. The question is whether it changes if the mass spins. There is no obvious reason why it should.But it does at least explain a phenomenon that has puzzled me for years. The instrument panel of a light aircraft contains all sorts of delicate machinery which seems to work for years and years despite being boiled, frozen, vibrated, bounced around, flown to silly altitudes, subject to loads of g in all directions, kicked as you get in the plane, sneezed and vomited over, and parked on the grass in all weathers. Except for the clock. Probably the simplest, most robust, most mature piece of kit on the panel, and they never work. Electric or mechanical, all certified airworthy, and I've never known one to actually tell the time. Now I understand why - there are at least three gyroscopes on the same panel!

For my explanation of why & how spinning objects might affect nearby clocks have a look at #25 on page 2 of this present thread.

The rate of a clock will be altered by the proximity of any mass. The question is whether it changes if the mass spins. There is no obvious reason why it should.

But it does at least explain a phenomenon that has puzzled me for years. The instrument panel of a light aircraft contains all sorts of delicate machinery which seems to work for years and years despite being boiled, frozen, vibrated, bounced around, flown to silly altitudes, subject to loads of g in all directions, kicked as you get in the plane, sneezed and vomited over, and parked on the grass in all weathers. Except for the clock. Probably the simplest, most robust, most mature piece of kit on the panel, and they never work. Electric or mechanical, all certified airworthy, and I've never known one to actually tell the time. Now I understand why - there are at least three gyroscopes on the same panel!

Appendix 1 18 June 1975Simple Experimental Test for the Inertial Field of a Rotating Real Mechanical Object

Introduction: For the last five years, this investigator and others1, have studied the mechanical properties of rotating objects for the purpose of application of certain heretofore undiscovered properties of rotation to new forms of propulsion machinery and machines with anti-gravitational effect. The course of this investigator has not been to try to perfect new propulsion machinery, per se, but however to thoroughly investigate the phenomena of rotation.The result of a great deal of experimentation (see appendix), has resulted in a picture which relates the performance of certain non-conventional machinery: Dean, Laithwaite, Wolfe, DePalma, to a variable inertia property which can be engendered through motion of a rotating object.In terms of the acceptance of a new body of information relating to the properties of rotating objects and variable inertia, a simple experiment has to be devised which clearly demonstrates the new phenomena. In the performance of experiments with large rotating flywheels, there are great experimental difficulties which result from experimenting on the large rotating flywheels themselves. Through a series of corroborating experiments it has been established the anisotropic inertial properties of a rotating object are conferred on the space around the object. That is to say the space around a rotating object will have conferred upon it an inertial anisotropy. Let us ascribe this to the setting up of an od (odd) field through rotation of a real physical object. The purpose of the experiment to be described is the determination of one of the properties of an od field. The anisotropic inertia property.The Experiment: A good way to detect a field whose effect is a spatial inertial anisotropy is to use a time measurement based on an inertial property of space and compare it to a remote reference.

With reference to figure ( 1 ) we have a situation where the timekeeping rate of an Accutron tuning fork regulated wrist watch is compared to that of an ordinary electric clock with a synchronous sweep second hand.

The Accutron timepiece is specified to be accurate to one minute a month. Examination of the relative time drift of the Accutron - electric clock combination shows a cumulative drift of .25 second Accutron ahead for 4 hours of steady state operation. This is within the specification of the watch.With the flywheel spinning at 7600 r.p.m. and run steadily for 1000 seconds (17 minutes), the Accutron loses .9 second relative to the electric clock.Much experimentation has shown that the effect is greatest with the position of the tuning fork as shown. Magnetic effects from leakage fields from the gyro drive motors are almost entirely absent; any remaining leakage is removed by co-netic magnetic shielding. The Accutron is also in a "non-magnetic" envelope.The purpose of the experiment is a simple demonstration of one of the effects of the od field of a rotating object. The demonstration may easily be repeated using any one of a variety of rotating objects, motor flywheels, old gyrocompasses, etc. The rotating mass of the flywheels used in these experiments is 29 1/2 pounds. The rotational speed of 7600 r.p.m. is easily accessible. The effect is roughly proportional to the radius and mass of the rotating object and to the square of the rotational speed.Finer measurements can be made using an external electrically powered tuning fork oscillator and an electronic frequency counter. In this case the inertial anisotropy of the od field of a rotating object can be much more quickly and precisely measured. Field strength lines can be plotted along contours of constant frequency shift for the two orientation conditions of fork vibration direction parallel to, and perpendicular to, the axis of rotation of the test object.Conclusions and Observations: The proper conclusions and evaluations of the above experiment will affect present conceptions of Cosmology. Before this can happen, simple tests must be performed to show the existence of a new phenomenon. It is hoped the apparatus for the performance of these tests is widely enough available to lead to quick verification.

* Tewari has investigated the co-rotating Faraday homopolar motor. He calls it the Space Power Motor or SPM. The increased torque available when rotating is mitigated by a "slippage" which increases with rotational speed. Over a certain speed range the product of the two effects can result in a superior machine.* Appendix 1 - "Simple Experimental Test for the Inertial Field of a Rotating Real Mechanical Object"Published as: "The Tuning Fork Experiment" in: "Is God Supernatural"R. L. Dione, Bantam Book Pbl. Co., 1976

In #8 notice that DePalma doesnt mention aether even tho he mentions aether in other sections of his articles. In #8 he doesnt mention aetherwind, nor Lorentz Ticking Dilation. It is interesting that he places the watch on the face of the clock.The electric clock is supposedly not affected by the spinning disc, alltho he doesnt actually say that. The clock of course ticks in response to the frequency of the electricity, & that frequency is generated by the power company at a distant location.DePalma says that the ticking dilation of the Accutron tuning fork watch depends on orientation, ie parallel to axis has less effect than perpendicular to axis. This smells fishy. Orientation shouldnt make a difference, according to my centrifuging of aether theory & its effect on the aetherwind & based on the standard parameters of the oldendays Lorentz Ticking Dilation equation for gamma where V is the aetherwind (kmps). The ticking dilation is affected by the speed of the aetherwind not the velocity. Lorentz Length Contraction of the tuning fork is of course affected by velocity, ie orientation of tuning fork makes a difference to the fork's actual length. But i will think some more re this.

Ok i had a think. I am starting to think that ticking dilation is more complex than i thort. Mightbe the kind of clock has an effect on LTD. Still thinking. I will be back.

For my explanation of why & how spinning objects might affect nearby clocks have a look at #25 on page 2 of this present thread.

No, i think that aether doesnt have mass. I reckon that praether (praethons)(the fundamental essence) & aether (aethons)(an excitation of praether)(a process) are all sub-quantum, which means that they have no mass (by definition)(ie its a circular argument). But mass is difficult to define, i like to think of it as being the property of annihilating aether.

Aether (i will call it aether1) makes photons (aether2) & photons make confined photons (aether3)(electrons quarks etc) which make protons (aether4) & neutrons (aether4) which make atoms (aether5) etc. These five aethers are all processes (excitations) of praether, i could just as well have called them praether1 etc.

Aether2345 all contain aether1. Aether345 all contain aether2. Aether45 all contain aether3. Aether5 contains aether4. All aethers are a process or processes of praether, but praether doesnt sort of jump ahead over any intermediate process. But jumping aint necessarily critical, it aint excluded by some kind of Law.

Aether2345 are quantum, they have mass etc, because they all contain aether2, it is aether2 which annihilates aether1. Aether2 is peculiar, it moves (propagates) through aether1 at a constant speed of c kmps. In other words aether2 is an annihilation of aether1 & that annihilation (which has a beginning point & an end point) propagates at c kmps.

Aether2 propagates at c kmps inside aether3 but here that propagation is in the form of a confined loop or loops.

Empty space doesnt exist because it is filled with praether. However there might be volumes of space that have no aether. Aether1 is created in the center of each 200 million lightyear cosmic cell making up the infinite universe (see Ranzan's DSSU). And aether1 migrates to the edges of each cell & is annihilated along the way especially near edge where most mass is found & especially in blackholes.

Gravity is a process whereby aether1 flows into aether2 because aether1 is annihilated in aether2. The uniform flow of aether1 drags any & all aether2 but does not drag aether34567. It doesnt actually drag aether2 because aether2 is a process inside aether1 (it is an annihilation of aether1) & it is a part of aether1 & hencely always moves exactly as aether1 moves (there is no slippage)(there is no need for any kind of drag).However any acceleration of aether1 does drag aether34567. In other words a uniform velocity of aether1 drags aether2 but not aether34567, but an acceleration of the flow of aether1 does drag aether34567 (& aether2).

The gravitational acceleration of aether1 is not an excitation process, it is a bulk flow kind of process, & we can call it aetherG (but i wont, i will call it gravity).

Inertia acts in an opposite way to gravity. Here something forces aether34567 to accelerate, & the acceleration drags aether1, & hencely a force is required to accelerate aether34567. We call this force inertia, & we can call this process aetherI (but i wont, i will call it inertia). Note that inertia is not the opposite of aetherG, i said that inertia acts in an opposite way to gravity, because inertia doesnt involve any annihilation of aether1.

We cant measure gravitational mass, we measure inertial mass.

Aether1 has no mass (which sort of answers your question) & therefore cannot exert a gravitational or inertial force, aether1 merely pulls or pushes aether3. Here aether2 does not contribute to the pull-push, aether2 goes along for the ride (aether2 has zero inertia)(it has neutral buoyancy if u like, like a hot air balloon in air).

The pulling-pushing tween aether3 & other aether3 is by way of a continual back-forth reverberation of a pulse in aether1 that travels at over 20 billion c kmps. The pulse is a change in the bulk flow of aether1. This means that aether1 briefly moves at over 20 billion c (or it means that praether briefly moves at over 20 billion c)(i will have a think). This reverberation applies to both gravity & inertia. It involves a 3 dimensional pulse traveling in all directions to-from all nearby aether3. Therefore gravity & inertia cannot develop fully or quickly unless there is ample nearby aether3 in all directions. I could i suppose give this reverberation a name, in which case it would be aetherR or aetherP (but i wont).

However aether2 (photons) can exert gravitational force on other aether2. But aether2 does not possess inertia, nor can it participate in inertia, ie in inertial reverberation (it does participate, but it merely goes along for the ride).

I havnt mentioned charge-electro-magnetic radiation (static &/or dynamic). All such radiation consists of photaenos which are a tornadic excitation of praether, & which emanate at 5c kmps from the central helically propagating body of a photon (propagating at c kmps)(& at more than c kmps measured along the helix). Photaenos make the diameter of a photon infinite (but we dont know the length of a photon). Photaenos annihilate aether1, & hencely have mass, but dont possess inertia, nor participate in inertia (ie as per the central body)(the two "halves" making the whole photon)(aether2).

Neutrinos consist of two joined photons (two aether2's), one inside the other (u can do this with two helixes)(think of two coil springs) the photaeno fields cancel (being 180 deg apart), giving the neutrino its slippery nature. U could give a neutrino its own name, eg bi-aether2 or di-aether2.

So, aether (plain old aether)(aether1) does not have mass, because it does not annihilate aether (ie itself)(ie aether1). But there is a complication. Ranzan believes in a contractile aether, an aether that annihilates itself. He finds this necessary to explain the 1/RR relationship of Newtonian gravitational attraction. Hencely Ranzan's aether (my aether1) has mass. But i dont know whether this kind of self annihilation gives ordinary mass or some peculiar kind of mass, & whether that mass participates in inertia. Contractile aether means that the primary gravitational inflow creates its own secondary annihilation, which in a way means that gravity has its own mass, which possibly cant be attributed to any other mass. This is a bit weird. On the other hand Einstein did say that the bending of spacetime had its own mass. Anyhow i think that Ranzan's secondary mass is attributable to gravity not to aether. So, aether (aether1) has no mass.

But this is a work in progress, & i will come back & try to fix some of the sloppy thinking & sloppy wording.

Massless things are not affected by centrifugal forces. You can't "centrifuge" them.

In my aether theory there would be no such thing as centrifugal force with the spinning or orbiting of objects were it not for the action of massless aether. The Moon gives an outwards inertial force, which is resisted by an equal inwards force. The inwards force here is due to gravity (elsewhere it might be due to tension in a cord). The outwards force is due to the inwards acceleration of the shape of the Moon's curved traject. The inwards acceleration is similar to the ordinary linear acceleration of a car which we know exerts an inertial resistance force. In both cases (the Moon & the car) the inertial drag is due to the resistance of aether to acceleration. Aether doesnt resist uniform motion, ie constant velocity, but it resists acceleration, in this case the inwards acceleration of the Moon.

Aether can provide the radial inertial resistance to the Moon's inwards acceleration two ways, (1) it can sit still, or (2) it can be dragged inwards in the direction of the acceleration. If it is dragged then this can happen two ways, (2)(i) the dragging can be with zero slippage (the aether moves inwards with that exact acceleration), or (2)(ii) the dragging can involve a little or a lot of slippage (eg the aether might have an inwards acceleration of say 50% of the Moon's).I prefer (2)(ii), a little or a lot of slippage. If there is slippage then aether is sucked in towards the axis of spin or orbit.Looking now at the spinning Earth, aether is sucked in near Equator & hencely must be spat out axially near the two poles. In between the aether veers throo 90 deg, somewhere inside Earth.

With DePalma's spinning wheel, the aether is spat out axially up & down (the axis of the wheel is vertical). In the northern hemisphere the background aetherwind blowing throo Earth is blowing south to north, which in DePalma's lab will be mostly upwards. The axial upwards spitting of the aether adds to the wind (V+v). Below the wheel the axial downwards spitting negates the wind (V-v). Therefore (V+v) must have a bigger effect on gamma for Lorentz Ticking Dilation than does (V-v). And this is what DePalma says, he found the largest effect above the axis. But as i said before i am not sure why he said that a horizontal tuning fork had most effect. I am still thinking.

Ok i had a think. The background aetherwind blows at 500 kmps south to north throo Earth about 20 deg off Earth's spinaxis. At some northern latitudes at some times of day the wind will be more horizontal than vertical. Therefore that might have been the effect that DePalma unknowingly was measuring.

I think that he might have got that kind of effect even if he had done the test with the wheel not spinning. However there is a trap here, the background wind might have a similar effect on the frequency of the electricity from the power utility, even if the source is a long way away from DePalma's lab, ie the reference electric clock might be affected. Still thinking.

For my explanation of why & how spinning objects might affect nearby clocks have a look at #25 on page 2 of this present thread.

The ether is big and , at least in places, it's very near things that are big and dense. (Black holes if you believe in them; but stars will do if you don't).So how come it doesn't collapse under its own gravity?

The ether is big and , at least in places, it's very near things that are big and dense. (Black holes if you believe in them; but stars will do if you don't). So how come it doesn't collapse under its own gravity?

I believe in BHs, stars so massive that almost zero photons have the speed to escape their gravity. But i dont believe in Einsteinian BHs (stars so massive that their escape velocity is 300,000 kmps or more). My BHs can be much less massive.

Aether is an excitation of praether the fundamental essence. I assume that praether cant be annihilated, & cant collapse, & aint compressible, & fills space completely. Somehow aether (a process) is annihilated in all mass (ie in all photons), meaning that the excitation of praether ends (the aethon dissappears). So it doesnt need a lot of mass, just the minimum of mass will do the trick, by definition, because mass is the annihilation of aether.

Just how the aether is annihilated (the praether loses its excitation) has not been explained. I dont think its because of its own gravity. But there is some kind of associated collapse of aether, because aether flows in to replace the lost aether. This means that unexcited praether must have flowed out throo the incoming excited praether. More logically it means that the praether stays where it is, but that the excitations of the praether (aethr) move along inwards to a point where the excitations stop (end, disappear)(ie aether is annihilated).

Ranzan has a theory whereby in a BH (i cant remember whether Ranzan believes in Einsteinian BHs) there is an intermittent large-scale collapse (annihilation) of mass. Mass is made of confined photons (free photons form a loop by biting their tail), so annihilation of mass means that confined photons form free photons. I cant remember if Ranzan has an explanation whether the free photons are annihilated (returning to non-excited aether). But (non-excited) aether is being continuously annihilated inside every photon before during & after such collapse of mass.

You are building a house of cards of nonsense there. The rest of your post says "because magic"

It makes sense to me. And everything is magic untill explained.

Tell me what the Einsteinian house of cards looks like. No, let me guess. Hmmm, ok, lemeseenow, i dont see any Einsteinian house at all, i dont see any physical or mechanical explanations of the micro-world. Hmmmm, no cards to be seen. Hmmmm, no magic to be seen. Wow, thats brilliant, a genius. Everything exists & happens without needing any micro explanations, now thats what i call real magic.

I am thinking that miracle might be a good word to bring in here. But in any case science is all about finding explanations, to kill the magic, but u cant kill magic, it is replaced by magic at the next level (needing an even more difficult explanation), hencely u merely shuffle magic along for the next guy to kill.

So when i propose "my" aether i usually posit things that happen but without explaining the more minor details (which are actually more major details). I say "my" only because my aether is sure to be different in some way from the thousands of others.

But lets have a look at a little of Einstein's magic. The observer at the station can somehow see a ray of light emitted in the carriage & watches its progress & can see when an observer in the carriage sees the ray. There are at least 2 bits of magic here. Firstly how can u or i see a photon as it moves along (in the carriage). If the explanation is that it is a ray consisting of many photons & the air is dusty & the progress of the ray shows in the dust (some of the photons end up going from dust to eye), then this gives rise to the magic of how do the dusty photons travel at infinite speed to the eye so that the observer can see the actual progress of the ray (not some kind of time delayed progress). Anyhow, how do twin flashes or strokes of lightning happen simultaneously, wouldnt that take some sort of magic. Why didnt Einstein bring in some sort of gifted meteorologist to explain.